Before you leave here to chase trannys, or whatever it is you choose to chase, you might try participating in a blog.

Here’s how it works: The owner of the blog comments on something that has occurred to him, usually in current events. That is called posting. Other people then come along and comment on the owner’s post. This is called “commenting on the post.”

Now, while it is considered poor form to personally attack another commenter, it happens quite often, usually when one commenter disagrees with another. This is called “flaming.”

What rarely, if ever, happens, is when a commenter, rarely, if ever, comments, but rather wastes his time and energy not commenting, but attempting to insult and harass someone else on the blog, for no reason other than that he can. This is called “cyberstalking”, and is usually done by disturbed individuals.

Two of several signs that indicate that such a person is seriously disturbed are 1) That he repeats himself again and again (You know the saying: Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result).

2) He has nothing to say in the form of a comment. It is as if his sole purpose in life is to target one person, and make that person uncomfortable and unhappy.

It is unclear how or why he chooses who he does, but it is probably because he views the person as having some kind of power. He seeks to divest the person of that power, because he himself feels powerless, and thus resents people with power.

How to resolve this? My experience has shown me that such a “cyberstalker” can only be ignored, because there is no chance that he will change.

One can only hope that perhaps one day he will choose another target for stalking.

Good luck in your future endeavors, S. If you come across one of them, please give my regards to Roni and JK.

Dr. Gordon Allport suggested that being able to laugh is the first sign of recovery from mental illness!

You’re doing great, l’il fella!

LoL!

Here’s how it works. I made the statement based on well know newspaper stories, magazine articles, TV news and blogs.
Do you want to tell me that CENTCOM has made statements that are not confident?
Do you have information that our soldiers are unhappy — having morale problems?
Where have you read, or seen or heard that the Iraqi government has asked us to leave?

it is not military vs. military, it’s military vs. civilians. I’ll grant you, however, that peace-keeping was probably not the right word.
Well, no and yes.
It’s not military vs. civilians when you’re fighting terrorists — it’s asymmetrical warfare, not an asymmetrical police action.
And, yes, I am right; we are hardly a peacekeeping force in Iraq.
You needn’t be so aggressive. This is just a blog — not CrossFire.

You’re misplacing the burden of proof. By your logic, I can make all the shit up that I want, and force you to disprove it. Let’s try one:

fd10801 rapes 10 year old boys.

Disprove it. Not going to dignify that with a response? Good, that’s my entire point. You can’t just make a claim that “soldiers and Iraqis don’t mind being killed” and act shocked that I call BS on it.

And, by the way, Zython, you are trying to sell that “peacekeeping operation” bullshit to a veteran of the wrong war. Saying that the war in Iraq is a “peacekeeping operation” is like saying that the 1992 riot in LA was a “post-game fracas.

A. I don’t care that you fought in the Crusades.

B. The point is that this is not a “traditional” war in that it is not military vs. military, it’s military vs. civilians. I’ll grant you, however, that peace-keeping was probably not the right word.

And, by the way, Zython, you are trying to sell that “peacekeeping operation” bullshit to a veteran of the wrong war. Saying that the war in Iraq is a “peacekeeping operation” is like saying that the 1992 riot in LA was a “post-game fracas.”

End of story.

Do you have an opinion poll or any statistic to validate this arguement, or are you just pulling shit out of your ass as usual?

You can count people killed by exploding Coca – Colas in Preoria, people killed by wasps in Des Moines, Iowa and it doesn’t matter to the people who matter.

That’s because the odds of those kinds of fatalities occuring are negligably small. Once again, you prove that you never went to middle school. Then gain, you probably went before the discovery of ratios.

CENTCOM doesn’t care, the Iraqi government doesn’t care, and the average G.I. in Iraq is willing to stay for the duration.

Of course CENTCOM and the Iraqi government don’t care, they’re not the ones getting killed. And you have “willing to stay for the duration” confused with “extended leave” and “forced redeployment”.

If the news about the war were that it was a disaster; the Dems would be falling all over themselves calling for a withdrawal, wouldn’t they?

And they are. For example, I’m a Democrat, and I’m calling for the withdrawal of troops.

But they’re not, are they? And why not?
Because as power changes hands so does information. Now the Dems are cautious.
Now they’re not so anxious to cut and run.
Now the “not – liberal” MSM is not leaking damning classified information about the “quagmire.”

It’s only been a goddamned month since the election.

So put away your calculators, and read about how many of our guys died at Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Let’s actually look at the fucking context here for a second. In those instances you moentioned, the US was fighting an opposing military. Iraq, however, is more like that of a peace-keeping operation (Unless you actually believe there’s a country called “Terrorstan”, or “Insurgia”, which, frankly, I wouldn’t put past you). And it’s not doing too well in that regard.

Same ol, same ol. Just recently frame said I was a racist for opining that democracy would not work in Iraq. And there have been many posts from the left here to the effect that the ‘real’ story in Iraq is that all of the brown skinned people are dying and Bush doesn’t care – ipso facto he’s racist.

What you want me to do is listen to the arguments that Bush is a racist (and myself) and not respond in kind. And I still say that the number of deaths and their context versus previous wars (Iraq has a much much lower rate) are appropriate debating points.

But I have no wish to natagonize, so in the spirit of the Christmas season – I’m calling a small self-imposed moratorium.

End of story.

You can count people killed by exploding Coca – Colas in Preoria, people killed by wasps in Des Moines, Iowa and it doesn’t matter to the people who matter.

CENTCOM doesn’t care, the Iraqi government doesn’t care, and the average G.I. in Iraq is willing to stay for the duration.

If the “rumors behind the gossip behind the news” about the war were that it was a disaster; the Dems would be falling all over themselves calling for a withdrawal, wouldn’t they?

But they’re not, are they? And why not?
Because as power changes hands so does information. Now the Dems are cautious.
Now they’re not so anxious to cut and run.
Now the “not – liberal” MSM is not leaking damning classified information about the “quagmire.”

So put away your calculators, and read about how many of our guys died at Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Why do you say its safe. That seems idiotic.

And I served. Do I do it twice before you do it once?

Bullsh*t. I’ve given sources and context before.

Again. Iraq and Mideast dead post Saddam: Iraq Body Count – about 55K total since April 2003 or 43 months – rate about 1,280 per month. Pre Saddam: take your choice. Kosopaedia and Rush Limbaugh say Saddam was responsible for about about 2M. (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm) US State Dept. here documented about 900K under Saddam – not counting Iran/Iraq war. Former US War Crimes Amb. D Scheffer detailed about 1M – again not using the Iran/Iraq war.

My number is : 1.2M = 500K Iran/Iraq war, 100K Kurds, 600K Iraqi civilians. Saddam was in power for 24 years or 288 months. Rate per month 4.2K.

The magnitude of difference is great – too great for Saddam not to have been much worse. And yes you can speculate that Saddam would have somehow stopped murdering, but 24 years worth of evidence suggests otherwise.

Take it daily. Bush 43. Saddam 140. Thre’s your g*ddamn context. Using only history as a go-by, roughly 100 mostly brown skinned people were dying per day under Saddam and the Baathists.

“I honestly cannot remember one post ever from you or any other left of center poster here chiding OW or the other loc posters here for using body counts against Bush and the war.”

Fine. *Taps Mic* O-Dub? For the record, simple gross total tallys of the number of Coalition Soldiers KIA, of Iraqi civilian casualties, of attacks in a particular week, of people killed in such attacks, and generally any single number that refers to any of the negatives about this war is not, in and of itself, a good case against the war. It needs something to compare it to to make it any kind of real argument, like as I suggested if we had some theoretical baseline to compare current death rate to or something (which we dont have cause Dug insists on using average deaths per year over a time that includes wars as a baseline for deathrate during a time that otherwise wouldnt have one) but since we dont, please be aware that making posts regarding the rapidly approaching 3000 military death “milestone” arent really making any kind of argument against the war, and that they simply serve as a reminder to us that we’re still in an escalating conflict with no hope of escaping. There, Dug, Happy?

“I would add that you don’t fight wars by measuring victory against how few men die, and how soon we are “out of there.”

Oh fuck me gently with a chainsaw do you not even realize thats what the administration has been doing? “Its not quite as fatal to the civilians as Vietnam was, so therefore we haven’t lost yet.” “We lost if we lose before the undefined job is done, so we havent lost yet.” Christ, Dugger just polished off his old chestnut of “In spite of high (and rising by some numbers) civilian mortality rates, its not as bad as it might have been under Saddam, (which, again, I argue he has failed to prove) so we’re not losing yet.”

I would add that you don’t fight wars by measuring victory against how few men die, and how soon we are “out of there.”

I read an article recently headlined, Will We Ever Win Another War?”, by Ben Shapiro.

His answer: “Only if we combine our Cold War vigilance with our World War II ruthlessness.”

We certainly can’t do it without either.

It IS their job to set the policy and to make sure competent people are executing the policy.

Hells bells. Its done all the time – all the frappin time- on this site to make the case against Bush. To me the most significant thing about war is people die. If I were going to war, the cost in terms of human lives would be major point. So now you don’t want them to be considered – logically and in context?

I honestly cannot remember one post ever from you or any other left of center poster here chiding OW or the other loc posters here for using body counts against Bush and the war.

Seems like you’re just saying: I don’t like it when you fight fire with fire. Let us use fire agianst Bush and you can use a cap pistol.

2) Or they have no way to get out without looking like cowardly dogs.

Too bad they fooled the voters in ‘06.

As for ‘08, you know the saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, etc.”

Frank, the American people aren’t stupid lemmings vulnerable to ‘being fooled’. Aside from you and pedugger, millions of voters spoke loudly and clearly to the confused, disoriented President who turned on a dime without blinking an eye and fired the Secretary of Defense.

The Decider himself knows he can’t ‘finish what we started’ WITH the guy who spearheaded the entire operation.

I love the ‘fool me’ cliche. The Decider fucking botched that loooong, long ago!